event hearing in Indiana

2016Id. at 729 ; I.C. § 24-5-0.5-4(d) (“[T]he court may void or limit the application of contracts or clauses resulting from deceptive acts and order restitution to be paid to aggrieved customers”) (emphasis added), We have previously elaborated: We must [ ] conclude from ... the legislature’s failure to use words like “void” or “voidable” in HICA to describe contracts made in violation thereof, as well as the inclusion of remedial provisions to be invoked in the event of a violation, one of which is voiding the contract, that the General Assembly did not intend [ ] every contract made in violatio

2014Costello, 965 N.E.2d at 729 .

2025Id.

2015Id. at 155-156 , 98 S. Ct. at 2676 . [27] In Leon, the United States Supreme Court addressed “whether the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule should be modified so as not to bar the use in the prosecution’s case in chief of evidence obtained by officers acting in reasonable reliance on a search warrant issued by a detached and neutral magistrate but ultimately found to be unsupported by probable cause.” 468 U.S. at 900 , 104 S. Ct. at 3409.

2015Id. at 155-156 , 98 S. Ct. at 2676 . [27] In Leon, the United States Supreme Court addressed “whether the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule should be modified so as not to bar the use in the prosecution’s case in chief of evidence obtained by officers acting in reasonable reliance on a search warrant issued by a detached and neutral magistrate but ultimately found to be unsupported by probable cause.” 468 U.S. at 900 , 104 S. Ct. at 3409.

2015Id. at 155-156 , 98 S. Ct. at 2676 . [27] In Leon, the United States Supreme Court addressed “whether the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule should be modified so as not to bar the use in the prosecution’s case in chief of evidence obtained by officers acting in reasonable reliance on a search warrant issued by a detached and neutral magistrate but ultimately found to be unsupported by probable cause.” 468 U.S. at 900 , 104 S. Ct. at 3409.

2001In the event of a hearing, however, to qualify for the this hybrid claim exception, City Chapel would have to demonstrate at the hearing that South Bend's taking of its church building would both (1) significantly affect or burden its members' right to expressive association, see Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 , 120 S.Ct. 2446, 2452-583 , 147 L.Ed.2d 554, 564-66 (2000), and (2) substantially burden a religious practice, City of Boerne, 521 U.S. at 518 , 117 S.Ct. at 2160-61 , 138 L.Ed.2d at 634 (quoting Sherbert, 374 U.S. at 406 , 83 S.Ct. at 1795 , 10 L.Ed.2d at 972 ).

2001In the event of a hearing, however, to qualify for the this hybrid claim exception, City Chapel would have to demonstrate at the hearing that South Bend's taking of its church building would both (1) significantly affect or burden its members' right to expressive association, see Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 , 120 S.Ct. 2446, 2452-583 , 147 L.Ed.2d 554, 564-66 (2000), and (2) substantially burden a religious practice, City of Boerne, 521 U.S. at 518 , 117 S.Ct. at 2160-61 , 138 L.Ed.2d at 634 (quoting Sherbert, 374 U.S. at 406 , 83 S.Ct. at 1795 , 10 L.Ed.2d at 972 ).

2001In the event of a hearing, however, to qualify for the this hybrid claim exception, City Chapel would have to demonstrate at the hearing that South Bend's taking of its church building would both (1) significantly affect or burden its members' right to expressive association, see Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 , 120 S.Ct. 2446, 2452-583 , 147 L.Ed.2d 554, 564-66 (2000), and (2) substantially burden a religious practice, City of Boerne, 521 U.S. at 518 , 117 S.Ct. at 2160-61 , 138 L.Ed.2d at 634 (quoting Sherbert, 374 U.S. at 406 , 83 S.Ct. at 1795 , 10 L.Ed.2d at 972 ).

2001In the event of a hearing, however, to qualify for the this hybrid claim exception, City Chapel would have to demonstrate at the hearing that South Bend's taking of its church building would both (1) significantly affect or burden its members' right to expressive association, see Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 , 120 S.Ct. 2446, 2452-583 , 147 L.Ed.2d 554, 564-66 (2000), and (2) substantially burden a religious practice, City of Boerne, 521 U.S. at 518 , 117 S.Ct. at 2160-61 , 138 L.Ed.2d at 634 (quoting Sherbert, 374 U.S. at 406 , 83 S.Ct. at 1795 , 10 L.Ed.2d at 972 ).

1999Ice Miller cites In re Udell, 18 F.3d 403 (7th Cir.1994) as support for its argument that this liquidated damages provision was a claim dis-chargeable in bankruptcy.

1987In United States v. Dinitz (1976), 424 U.S. 600, 609-11 , 96 S.Ct. 1075, 1080-81 , 47 L.Ed.2d 267, 275-76 , on remand, 538 F.2d 1214 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1104 , 97 S.Ct. 1133 , 51 L.Ed.2d 556 (1977), the Supreme Court held: “The important consideration, for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause, is that the defendant retain primary control over the course to be followed in the event of such error. # * * • * # * The Double Jeopardy Clause does protect a defendant against governmental actions intended to provoke mistrial requests and thereby to subject defendants to the substantia

1987It bars retrials where ‘bad-faith conduct by judge or prosecutor,’ United States v. Jorn, supra, at 485 , 27 L.Ed2d 543, 91 S Ct 547 threatens the ‘[hjarassment of an accused by successive prosecutions or declaration of a mistrial so as to afford the prosecution a more favorable opportunity to convict’ the defendant, [citations omitted].” Finally, in a case very similar to this, the Supreme Court held: “Where the defendant, by requesting a mistrial, exercised his choice in favor of terminating the trial, the Double Jeopardy Clause generally would not stand in the way of reprosecution.

1987In United States v. Dinitz (1976), 424 U.S. 600, 609-11 , 96 S.Ct. 1075, 1080-81 , 47 L.Ed.2d 267, 275-76 , on remand, 538 F.2d 1214 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1104 , 97 S.Ct. 1133 , 51 L.Ed.2d 556 (1977), the Supreme Court held: “The important consideration, for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause, is that the defendant retain primary control over the course to be followed in the event of such error. # * * • * # * The Double Jeopardy Clause does protect a defendant against governmental actions intended to provoke mistrial requests and thereby to subject defendants to the substantia

1987In United States v. Dinitz (1976), 424 U.S. 600, 609-11 , 96 S.Ct. 1075, 1080-81 , 47 L.Ed.2d 267, 275-76 , on remand, 538 F.2d 1214 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1104 , 97 S.Ct. 1133 , 51 L.Ed.2d 556 (1977), the Supreme Court held: “The important consideration, for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause, is that the defendant retain primary control over the course to be followed in the event of such error. # * * • * # * The Double Jeopardy Clause does protect a defendant against governmental actions intended to provoke mistrial requests and thereby to subject defendants to the substantia

1987In United States v. Dinitz (1976), 424 U.S. 600, 609-11 , 96 S.Ct. 1075, 1080-81 , 47 L.Ed.2d 267, 275-76 , on remand, 538 F.2d 1214 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1104 , 97 S.Ct. 1133 , 51 L.Ed.2d 556 (1977), the Supreme Court held: “The important consideration, for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause, is that the defendant retain primary control over the course to be followed in the event of such error. # * * • * # * The Double Jeopardy Clause does protect a defendant against governmental actions intended to provoke mistrial requests and thereby to subject defendants to the substantia

1987In United States v. Dinitz (1976), 424 U.S. 600, 609-11 , 96 S.Ct. 1075, 1080-81 , 47 L.Ed.2d 267, 275-76 , on remand, 538 F.2d 1214 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1104 , 97 S.Ct. 1133 , 51 L.Ed.2d 556 (1977), the Supreme Court held: “The important consideration, for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause, is that the defendant retain primary control over the course to be followed in the event of such error. # * * • * # * The Double Jeopardy Clause does protect a defendant against governmental actions intended to provoke mistrial requests and thereby to subject defendants to the substantia